---

---

---

My name is John Cranshaw.   I joined Fort Funston Dog Walkers shortly after the paved Sunset Trail was torn out at Fort Funston without any public discussion, resulting in denial of access to that lovely walk for the disabled and elderly.                       

We are here tonight to prevent another such travesty from occurring.  I suspect this is the first time you are holding public hearings after a project has already been implemented. At Fort Funston, this is par for the course.  This hearing is occurring only because our lawsuit forced the Park Service to do so.  This is merely their belated effort to comply with their own regulations, so as to justify what they have already done by fencing off large areas.   

In response to our audacity in asking them to follow their own rulemaking, they now propose to fence off an additional two acres, and to make the closures permanent, not seasonal.   As a recent newspaper editorial stated when referring to the controversy at Fort Funston, “It’s not often that an agency charged by a judge of violating federal law and ignoring public input uses the opportunity to stick it to the public once again.” 

As you might imagine, this has upset a great many of the people who visit Fort Funston regularly.  You will likely hear tonight some less-than-flattering things said about the Park Service.  Please don’t be offended.  We realize you do not represent the Park Service, but instead represent the public’s oversight of the Park Service.  In fact, we look to you as the only forum, outside the courts, for objective consideration of the needs of all who use Fort Funston.  

I urge you to consider seriously the arguments made by those who disagree with the Park Service’s decision.  They are not merely “venting,” but in fact have legitimate grievances, and reasonable arguments.  I am a physician, and understand how important it is to listen carefully and objectively to each patient’s story.  To do otherwise is to run the risk of missing the correct diagnosis.   

Likewise, for you to listen only to what the Park Service says is best for Fort Funston is to run the risk of making a very wrong decision. As reported in the prestigious journal Science this spring, the Park Service has a history of using questionable science for its decision-making. It’s for certain that they have been unable to provide us with substantive data f this closure.Is it any wonder much of the public doubts the Park Service’s unsubstantiated proposals when these affect our lives so profoundly?   

The Park Service states that permanent closures are now necessary, and should even be expanded.  The justifications they make for these closures are even weaker than before, if that can be believed.  Those speakers following me will point out some of these weaknesses, and impress upon you how such closures would adversely affect the majority of people who actually visit Fort Funston.  The public’s voice must be considered for a meaningful decision to be made.  We will not go away.  Thank you. 

---

Good evening, Commissioners.  I am Christy Cameron and I’m a resident of San Francisco.

Over the past several years, I’ve witnessed the closure or attempted closure of most of the coastal areas of Fort Funston. 

In 1991, the northern coastal section was closed in the name of bank swallow protection. The bank swallows abandoned this area, but it hasn’t been re-opened. The basis for the closure was expanded to also encompass a so-called “native plant habitat.”  

In 1995, the inland northern section was closed for native plant habitat.   

Also in 1995, the Battery Davis Slope was closed for erosion control and native plant habitat.  It was to have re-opened in five years.  There was no significant planting and it has not re-opened. 

In 1999, the Sunset Trail was closed.  The reason given was unsafe pavement, although it did not appear unsafe.  All of this paved, accessible trail along the ocean bluffs was turned to rubble and trucked away.  On the eve of the federal lawsuit in March of this year, the trail was re-opened as a sand-strewn path, but one which remains closed to those with limited mobility. 

This year: 

The northern Spur Trail was closed. 

“The Gap” beach access route was closed.  

A five-acre area was closed, ostensibly for the good of the bank swallows, but later expanded to a laundry list of native plant, erosion, and safety claims, none of which have been shown to be necessary. 

Yet another five-acre parcel was to be closed only seasonally, for the five months a year that the bank swallows are nesting.  It was closed under an emergency order, even though the bank swallows return like clockwork every year and this year they didn’t nest in this area. 

Now the current closure proposal would legalize the previous two closures, make them both year-round, and add yet another two acres for no clear purpose.  

Closing off the entire Fort Funston coastal bluffs from the Great Highway to the Observation Deck would be unthinkable – people would demand notice, scientific evidence to back such a drastic plan, and a long, messy public debate would ensue.   

Instead, through a carefully paced series of closures, the Park Service is gaining piecemeal what it could not get in one fell swoop: the closure of our most treasured oceanview bluffs.   

This is why it is not truthful to claim that the proposed closure is just a small part of the park. 

Please put an end to this Closure Creep. 

Thank you.

---

Commissioners- 

My name is Laura Cavaluzzo. I’ve been following the National Park Service’s justifications for their actions at Fort Funston quite closely and comparing them to available scientific data on bank swallows. I’m here tonight to relate just a few of the disturbing inconsistencies I’ve uncovered in the process. 

1) We’ve been told that fencing off a substantial portion of prime recreational space -- first identified as six acres, then admitted to be ten acres, now proposed at twelve acres -- is necessary to protect the threatened bank swallow from what the park service terms “increased recreational pressures.”  They cite collapsed burrows due to human-caused erosion as a significant direct cause of mortality among the birds. 

However, the state’s bank swallow experts say by far the biggest threats to nesting birds are flood protection and erosion control programs. Recreational disturbance that does occur is mainly caused by boat wakes undercutting riverbanks. 

Those threats simply don’t exist at Fort Funston. 

2) When it was pointed out that a fence or natural barrier set back slightly from the edge of the bluff would suffice for protection, the story changed. 

The Park Service now says that it’s necessary to fence out thousands of park users to plant fragile native plants, which it claims will help the colony to thrive. 

But state Fish & Game scientists say that bank swallows appear to be little affected by exotic species. They nest happily beneath actively farmed crops and, in fact, did fine for many years at Fort Funston beneath hardy, recreation-tolerant iceplant. 

The swallows need only high, vertical banks and soil that’s easy to dig in -- all of which Fort Funston has in spades, and will continue to have with no help at all from the Park Service. 

3) The Park Service says the swallow needs human intervention and management to thrive at the Fort. 

But, when they followed this same protection plan between 1992 and 1995 the bank swallow numbers declined precipitously. Meanwhile, the new ‘native habitat zone’ -- protected from disturbance by humans and dogs -- became a favorite hunting ground for hawks, ravens and kestrels -- among the main predators of swallows in California. 

Ultimately, the swallows moved out of the “protected” zone and into a popular recreation area topped by iceplant.  

And now, with no adequate scientific study of the original fiasco, the Park Service is planning to repeat it. 

4) The Park Service has claimed that the closure will provide a necessary “flyover zone” between Lake Merced -- where the birds primarily forage -- and the nesting site.  

However, the authorities, including a Park Service biologist, say such a zone provides no benefit at all to the bank swallows.  

5) The Park Service claims that this proposal is “consistent with” protection measures recommended by experts. 

However, the state’s bank swallow expert did not recommend closing areas beyond the cliff edge, despite being asked to cite recreation as a threat to the birds. 

In short, the Park Service has many excuses, but few valid reasons for the closure they are proposing.  

And their lack of interest in real science is not only destroying a precious recreational resource, it may well be destroying the very birds they claim to protect. 

Thank you.

---

Introduction

Good evening members of the advisory commission.  My name is Linda Shore and I am speaking on behalf of the Fort Funston Dog Walkers.

I'm a physicist with a doctorate in science education. I'm here to tell you that the National Park Service proposal contains claims about the cliffs that are unsubstantiated, misleading, or, at worst, in gross violation of some very basic principles of science.

In the very short time I have, let me describe just a few examples:

First:  Protection Of The Bank Swallows

The proposal describes six "documented ways" that the nesting swallows are being disturbed by recreation on the bluffs:  First there is the claim that people and pets disturb the colony by "the casting [of] shadows that may be perceived as predators".

The notion that you can cast shadows on the burrows from the cliff tops is completely erroneous. Let me explain by giving you an elementary lesson in light and shadows.

Light travels in straight lines.  Shadows happen when light is blocked. Let's consider that very rare sunny day during the summer bank swallow nesting season at Fort Funston. When the morning sun is in the eastern sky, a person on the cliff casts a shadow westward over the ocean, but not on the cliff face.  When the afternoon sun is in the west, the shadow cast by a person on the bluff tops go east, away from the cliffs.  At no time can a person cast a shadow on the nests.

Four other alleged disturbances to the colony, such as aircraft flights and cliff climbing -- are not even prevented by banning access to the bluffs, and won't be discussed here.

The final claim, that the closure prevents disturbances from falls and resulting cliff rescues, is unsubstantiated.  The Park Service does not provide any data on the number of accidents that have actually occurred near the burrows.  Therefore it is impossible to judge whether this problem merits the permanent closure of 12 acres of land.   And even if falls are a common occurrence, why not erect a barrier instead?

Second:  Protection Of The Geology

The Park Service claims that its closure would prevent human-induced damage to the bluffs, which they describe as a "fragile geological resource."  However, a geologist who has conducted extensive research at Fort Funston for the USGS assured me that "non-motorized recreational use of this area would have [no] impact..." He went on to explain, "The amount of material lost through cliff retreat and landsliding dwarfs any impact. from people walking along the cliff."

Summary
The National Park Service is in such a hurry to get the rulemaking process done with that they are offering up a proposal that includes unsubstantiated claims and gross scientific errors. Why don't issues affecting Fort Funston merit good science and careful planning?  Why is tonight's circus-like atmosphere the only opportunity for dialogue?

Commissioners, in the name of the citizens you represent, tell the Park Service to take down the new fences. Advise the park service to engage in meaningful discussions with the people who actually use the park. Force park management to change the way it does business at Fort Funston.  If you accomplish this, you will put an end to the divisiveness, the lawsuits, and arduous public hearings like this one that will surely go well into the night.

Thank you for youir attention.

---

My name is Jane Shepard.  I am president of the board of directors for Golden Gate Senior Services, a non-profit agency that operates senior centers here in the City.  My dog and I volunteer in the Animal Assisted Therapy Program visiting hospitals, convalescent homes, psych wards, adult day care centers, etc.  But I am here tonight as a mother and a friend. 

Five and a half years ago, my friend suddenly found herself a single parent with 5 children and a large mortgage.  She hadn't worked in 15 years and day-to-day living became a very scary thing.  Her friends helped by taking 1-2 of the children to give her a little respite.   

Wonderfully energetic children need an open space to run and play so that they can return to the house happily exhausted.  A place that is a free, safe, and healthy alternative to expensive theme parks, shopping trips, video arcades, or driving to outlying destinations; a place where they are not threatened by or drawn into gangs and rough environments. 

Luckily, that exact type of place existed for these children at Ft. Funston. My husband and I would take all five of them for a weekend and head straight to "The Fort" right after breakfast, where they'd race each other down the valley and up the sand dune, sometimes called "Joey's Hill".  They played hide and seek under the trees.  

Two of the five children WERE here tonight to tell you how they feel about this area, but it's a school night and they had to leave. Luckily, we have slides which show how they feel and a picture is worth a thousand words.

For lots of urban dwelling children, Ft. Funston is their playground.  Their favorite place is the very area you propose to close. 

To put a fence around these dunes to “protect” them would be like not wearing my mother’s ring so I don’t “lose” it.   I prefer to enjoy it every day.  We hope you’ll make that choice, too. 

Thank you.

---

Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for hearing us tonight.
 
My name is Vicki Tiernan and first I'd like to say that I think we are very fortunate to have a Citizens Advisory Commission to act as liaison between the citizens and the Park Service. I've attended several meetings now and have been very impressed with the way you seem to study and discuss issues in depth. We ask only that you study the Funston issues with that same careful attention to detail. There is reason why such huge controversy exists over Funston.

Several previous speakers have raised significant questions about the scientific basis for the Park Service's actions.  Again, please study those questions carefully. The future of one of the most beautiful and beloved parks in the GGNRA is at stake.

I would like to address the location of the proposed closures and the fact that the fences are a blight on a spectacular landscape. 

We all want to protect the bank swallows.  However, the proposed closure area extends far back from the bluffs and is being used as an area for planting.  The benefit of this planted area for the bank swallows has been called into serious question, and there is no credible evidence of the need for a fly-over zone for the birds en route to feeding at Lake Merced.  My question, then, is why not plant the plants in other areas of the park that are not as popular for recreational use?  Planting an area with less foot traffic would reduce the need for fencing and intensive maintenance and would therefore save money and time.  

In addition, the valley, dunes and cliffs in question are a spectacular sight to behold.  The beautiful views are currently being ruined by more and more ugly fences.   Shouldn’t the mandate of the Park Service include protection of visual resources?  Many people go to Fort Funston because of the sense of freedom and the unobstructed views of wide open spaces. Stockade-like fences are most certainly NOT native to the dunes. 

For protection of people, dogs, and bank swallows from cliff accidents, why not try a more natural and less drastic alternative, such as a native shrub planted near the bluffs.  This would address safety issues and at the same time preserve the beautiful, wide-open viewscape. 

Last, I’d like to remind everyone that dogs and humans are very much a part of nature, too.  If this photo doesn’t demonstrate nature at its finest and Fort Funston at its finest, I don’t know what would.  We are all a part of the overall social, cultural, and ecological habitat of Fort Funston.  

Please don't allow the Park Service to upset the balance, harmony, and beauty we’ve found on this land for decades by carving it up, excluding us from increasingly more of it, and turning this urban paradise into little more than a fenced compound. 

Thank you very much.

---

Good evening, again. My name is Florence Sarrett. Much has been said or implied tonight, on the subject of off -lead dogs. But I'd rather talk about off-lead people: the health benefits of walking a dog and the emotional benefits of belonging to a community. 

It's a no-brainer that walking is fine exercise, and walking a dog is a sure and delightful way to get it. I actually have a “prescription” from an orthopedic surgeon; it says: "This lady's dog should not be on a lead. This is for her safety and to prevent injury." And James Herriot has written, "Anybody who has ever walked a dog knows the abiding satisfaction which comes from giving pleasure to a loved animal.". 

Most important of all is the spirit of community at Fort Funston, whether you're with a dog or without one. I invite each of you to walk the trails there, if you haven't done it already. Nowhere else in the city will you be greeted so warmly by so many strangers, and your walk will be a mile of smiles. 

At my age, not much family is left. Husband is gone, brother and sister are gone, and children are not close by. But the men and women speaking here tonight are my new brothers and sisters, and my life is richer because of them. I am honored by their friendship, and I join them in urging you not to sanction the ruin of this oasis of the spirit. 

Thank you.

---

Good evening, Commissioners, Superintendent O’Neill, and Park Service Staff.  I am Lydia Boesch.  I am an attorney, and over the past six months, I’ve had the delightful privilege of representing the plaintiffs in the federal litigation.

 I am here tonight to bring to your attention two key considerations that must be taken into account when deciding on the proposed closure.  Those are (1) the history of Fort Funston and (2) the enabling legislation.

 First, the history of Ft Funston:  Fort Funston was first opened to the public in 1961 as a San Francisco city park.  Since 1961, residents throughout the entire Bay Area have been walking their dogs off-leash at Fort Funston.  This tradition began more than a decade before the GGNRA was even established and almost 15 years before SF deeded Fort Funston to the United States.

In 1978, this Advisory Commission, pursuant to the enabling legislation, recognized that off-leash dogwalking is an acceptable and legal recreational activity and held — in their words — “extensive” public hearings to determine where off-leash dogwalking would be permitted within the GGNRA.  Fort Funston was designated one of those areas.

Now, more than 600,000 visitors every single year visit Fort Funston to walk their dogs.  No wonder it has been considered for years the best place in the Bay Area to walk dogs.  Fort Funston is not Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, or Mt. Rushmore; it is a city park, visited by the same Bay Area residents, every single day, rain or shine, day in and day out.

 The second consideration is the enabling legislation:  You Commissioners can fulfill your statutory duties only by completely understanding the enabling legislation of GGNRA.  The enabling legislation is your guiding light in making every decision affecting Fort Funston.  To understand the enabling legislation, you must read the Senate hearings, the House hearings, and the House Report.  Only then will you fully understand that Congress never intended that Fort Funston be closed off to develop wildlife habitat from scratch, but instead intended that the park be used forever for recreational open space. Thank you for your time, your attention, and especially for your careful consideration of these vital points.

[ Conclusion of Fort Funston Dog Walkers Panel of Speakers ] 

---

---

---

Good evening. I'm Ed Sayres, President of the San Francisco SPCA, representing 91,249 members, and happy to address you, even at this late hour.

I am, at the end of my remarks here, going to give you our report called "The People's Park," and I think that is appropriate for a citizen's committee, because you are the voice of the people.

I realize there've been some great points made tonight, but let me just cite one of your own, the National Park Service's own, studies, which is to say: When the National Park Service surveyed the public and said, "What do you enjoy most, what do you find special about Fort Funston?," 74 percent of the respondents said "The dogs." The dogs were in fact the things that stand out about Fort Funston. Twenty-one percent said the views. Less than 2 percent had any complaint about dogs, and no one in this National Park Service survey said anything about native plants.

I think [with regard to] Florence's point realized that off-leash dog walking is, in fact, a quality-of-life issue. I mean, the exuberance of a dog off leash enables both the guardian and the dog to have the kind of moment that is the quality of life that we look for from our National Parks and from our recreational activities.

You will see, from our study, that we have looked at the issues around the bird habitat issue, we've looked at some of the issues that the erosion has been impacted, and conclude that Fort Funston is created for recreational use. Off-leash dog walking is one of the most vital and important quality of life and recreational uses that we have today. And I would just encourage you to not honor this closure of these 12 acres, and please refute that in the name of the recreational opportunities for our San Franciscans.

Thank you very much.

My name is Denise Selleck and I am here on behalf of PAWS -- Pets are Wonderful Support. Our clients are low income people who have AIDS or other chronic illnesses and their companion animals. Our mission is to keep these animals with their guardians as long as possible.